“It is important ambulance officers are identifiable in an emergency environment where circumstances can change rapidly. Not complying is a health and safety risk not only to the employee but to fellow officers and other emergency workers. While there is only a very small number of ambulance professionals refusing to wear hi-vis vests, we have advised First Union and our staff that those employees not complying with this requirement will receive a 10 per cent deduction of wages.”

How cutting wages improves safety for workers is not made clear by Ms Lane.

“When a crew arrived in mufti at a station in Auckland this morning their manager snapped that ‘if someone dies because they didn’t let you in be it on your heads’. This comes on the same day station managers in the Bay of Plenty told several ambulance officers over the phone that industrial action was cancelled, even though this isn’t true.”

First Union was not a party to the new collective agreement. St John stated on it’s webpage,

It is our preference to have nationally consistent terms and conditions for all St John employees, accordingly, St John and the four union parties have made provision for the First Union members to become party to the new Collective Agreement should they wish

The statement continued with this ominous ‘rider’;

If First Union decides not to become party to the new Collective Agreement, St John will continue to work through the various options available.

The union representing over 1000 St John Ambulance staff has today received confirmation from the Employment Relations Authority that St John has lodged an application to withdraw from bargaining without concluding a collective agreement.

If St John were to be successful they would be the first company to withdraw from bargaining without concluding a collective agreement under the 2015 amendments to the Employment Relations Act.

Before the law change, parties bargaining for a collective agreement were required to conclude that agreement unless there was genuine reason not to. The change means that a collective agreement does not have to be concluded, however parties must still deal with each other in good faith.

[…]

The Act provides some protections against parties that end bargaining by deadlocking on one issue. Specifically, either party can seek a declaration from the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) about whether bargaining has concluded. The process is discussed in more detail below.

Jared Abbott, spokesperson for Ambulance Professionals First, the network within FIRST Union representing ambulance officers, said the application confirms what the union suspected: that St John had no intention of reaching an agreement.

“St John have spent less than two hours with us at the table since we started our protest actions. Applying to conclude bargaining now is outrageous. This is no way to treat your staff.”

Mr Abbott said that despite writing to the company on several occasions and requesting a proposed collective agreement, St John repeatedly refused to make a formal offer.

Ambulance Professionals First has also written to St John highlighting how no collective agreement was presented to the ratification meetings for the smaller unions who agreed to settle, a requirement under the law for a collective agreement to become operative.

“We’re astounded with how unprofessional St John has been. Ambulance staff just want fair recognition for the hard work they do. This is only going to get more staff off-side,” said Abbott.

We are Straight Up – WhakaponoWe act with honesty, courage and kindness.

They even have ‘badges’ proudly displayed on their webpage;

.

.

Obviously St John’s “five values” do not extend to their own workers.

Curiously, whilst St John proudly announced it’s collective agreement with four other unions on its “News Articles” page, it made no mention of it’s application to the Employment Relations Authority to abandon negotiation with First Union;

.

.

Neither has it disclosed to the public on it’s website that it is taking draconian steps to dock ambulance drivers’ pay packets by 10% for wearing shirts bearing union messages.

Is St John ashamed to present this information on their website, where public eyes can see what the organisation is doing to it’s ambulance drivers? It is evidently not a “good look” that an organisation nearly a thousand years old, and dedicated to helping people, is screwing its own staff.

Deductions may only be made from an employee’s pay if they are required by law, agreed to by the employee or are overpayments in some circumstances.

However, it appears that St John is stretching an exemption to what is known as a “partial strike“;

Employees strike when a number of employees totally or partially:

break their employment agreement

stop work or don’t accept some or all the work they usually do

reduce their normal output, performance, or rate of work.

Employees don’t have to stop work completely for them to be on strike.

However, one suspects that more reasonable-minded people would find it difficult to define a “partial strike” as wearing a shirt. If that is St John’s justification for docking ambulance drivers’ pay, then it may be on very shaky ground, both legally and morally.

Whether by luck, or clever design, this has all transpired over the Year’s End/New Year period when current affairs programmes such as The Nation and Q+A are on hiatus, and even Radio NZ is operating on a “summer holiday programme”. The later is closer to listening to The Breeze rather than serious news and current affairs.

Once the public begin to understand the machinations of St John’s management, that organisation’s reputation may risk a real hit. “A good reputation” as Colin Beveridge once reflected on, “is hard-won and easily lost. But the lost reputation has invariably been given away by the actions of the holder, rather than been taken away by somebody else.”

AFFCO chief executive, Hamish Simson, has informed the media that AFFCO has laid a complaint with the Serious Fraud Office to investigate the financial accounts of the meat workers’ union. According to Simpson, there are “irregularities” in the Union’s financial accounts.

Simspson claims that,

“It appears from the union’s published financial statements that only a fraction of its total income has been declared. Affco union members paid $5.95 a week each to the union, which totalled more than $500,000 a year.Affco workers represent less than 10 per cent of the 23,000 members the union says it has and yet it only declares revenue of just over $700,000 per annum.More and more of our staff are starting to question where their money has gone. With the union now asking the public for donations, every workers’ dollar must be accounted for. ” – Source

It is noteworthy that the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants has already investigated a similar complaint and found no evidence of wrong-doing.

When interviewed on Radio NZ’s Checkpoint, Hamish Simpson appeared less than forthcoming on several important matters. He could not even state how many “AFFCO union members” had “started to question where their money has gone“.

“It hasn’t taken into account that the Meat Workers’ Union’s made up of four independent branches that collect the union fees off the members.They run autonomous accounts and have them audited and pay a capitation to the national office. All the complaint is about is the national office accounts.”

AFFCO are playing silly buggers. Dave Eastlake is right; this is a publity stunt.

But more than that, this is a carefully orchestrated attempt to wreck the reputations of meatworkers and their Union in the publics’ mind. It is a similar ploy to the so-called “Fact Sheet” that Ports of Auckland Ltd published which alleged that port workers were “remunerated” $91,000 p.a.

It is noteworthy that in his media statement, Simpson referred to “the union now asking the public for donations“.

And that, I submit, is what this is all about; a battle for the hearts and minds of the public of New Zealand. It is a battle that POAL lost soon after the 5,000 strong street march on 10 March, and when the Employment Authority came down hard against the Port management and Board.

POAL have lost the struggle for public support.

POAL have all but lost the battle with the Courts.

Talleys AFFCO are witnessing a similar campaign to build public support for locked-out meatworkers, in the media, on Blogs, and in the community. Perhaps they understand that locking out workers, who were supporting families, is not a particularly good look. In fact, this blogger goes as far as to suggest that Talley’s management have stuffed up Big Time, and are only now beginning to comprehend their precarious position.

The fact that a public boycott of Talley’s products can actually damage their brand name and impact on their profitability is only now beginning to dawn on them?

With this blog, and others, and social media supporting a boycott – Talleys AFFCO is in trouble.

If you’re reading this and are pissed of at Talleys AFFCO’s dirty tricks campaign, you can make a quick $5 donation by calling: 0900 562 5688 . It’s a nice, easy way to vent your anger and support the locked out workers at the same time.

‘Karma’s a bitch‘ as they say, and at $5 it’s pretty damned cheap as well.

As this blogger predicted yesterday, the SFO found nothing untoward or “irregular” in the Meatworkers Union accounts. Talleys AFFCO agenda was to smear and discredit the Union – nothing else. The Serious Fraud Office must be mightily annoyed at being dragged into an industrial dispute as a pawn by company bosses.

One hope the SFO invoices or prosecutes Talleys for wasting Police time.